Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 12, 2022Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 17 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I 1. Disclosure of Interest Sean Wiley advised he would recuse himself from voting, due to a potentially perceived conflict of interest on Item 4.7 for P/CA 33/22 for Infrastructure Ontario – lands within the Hydro Corridor located east of 915 & 935 Sandy Beach Road. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, January 12, 2022 hearing be adopted, as amended Carried Unanimously 2.1 Appointment of Chairperson Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That David Johnson be appointed as Chairperson for the 2022 term. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 17 2.2 Appointment of Vice-Chairperson Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by David Johnson That Tom Copeland be appointed as Vice-Chairperson for the 2022 term. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the minutes of the 12th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, December 8, 2022 be adopted, as amended Carried Unanimously 4. Reports 4.1 (Tabled at the October 13, 2021 Hearing) P/CA 95/21 D. & K. Bridges 1003 Cloudberry Court Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 95/21 by D. & K. Bridges, be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6992/09, to: • permit a minimum front yard of 3.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum rear yard of 4.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum west side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 17 • permit a covered platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • permit an accessory building (detached garage) to be erected in the east side yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard; and • permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a height of 5.8 metres, whereas the By-law states no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling and detached garage. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no concerns with the requested variances. This lot was created through a Land Division application (LD 117/18). The requested variances did not match the plans submitted with the aforementioned Land Division application and therefore, the applicant has provided a revised Grading & Servicing Plan, Arborist Report and Arborist Plans. The applicant should ensure the LID (Low Impact Development) measures, proposed tree plantings, etc., shown in the aforementioned documents are reflected on the plans submitted at the Building Permit stage. In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing lot size and setbacks make it difficult to construct a two-storey dwelling to fit within the requirements. The increase in building height for the detached garage is so that the exterior architectural features of the detached garage, can follow the exterior architectural features of the house. The detached garage has been designed to match the roof pitches and height as much as possible. Hank Nauta, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 17 Hank Nauta spoke in support of the application, stating his agreement with City staff in that the four tests of the Planning Act are met. In response to a question posed by Hank Nauta; Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II, stated no additional comments were received after the writing of the report P/CA 95/21 that was published in the January 12, 2022 Committee of Adjustment Agenda. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Hank Nauta stated the scale of the home created the desire to accommodate the owner’s lifestyle with 5 vehicles. There is no intent to use the garage for business purposes. The applicant has completed Engineering Services requirements for grading and surface water run-off, where a full arborist report has been completed. It is the applicant’s intention to fully comply with the requirements of the City to their satisfaction as presented in the application. Due to the irregular configuration of the land and the applicant’s willingness to incorporate architectural design features of the design, Engineering Services have no concerns and any additional items will be met by the applicant. The application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, as documented and noted by the City Development Department, and Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 95/22 by D. & K. Bridges, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling and detached garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 01/22 C. & J. Flynn 917 Vistula Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 6.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 17 • a minimum side yard setback of 1.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of porch in the front yard projecting from the existing single-storey detached dwelling, and a two-storey addition on the west side of an existing single-storey detached dwelling to accommodate an attached garage and a habitable second-storey above the garage including a rear second-storey deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. No written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section on this application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure reduced setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Written comments were received from the residents of 928 Vistula Drive, in support of the application. Written comments were received from Felix Chau, Planner II, who submitted Revised Exhibits 2 and 5, on behalf of the applicant to the Committee Members, for their review and consideration. In support of the application, the applicant identified the lot is a pie shape with the front being larger than the back. The house is centered on the back lot line and was not built with an attached garage like most in the neighbourhood. The narrowing of the west property line makes it challenging to add a sufficiently sized garage to the property without moving the proposed building forward and slightly encroaching on the side yard setback. Chris Flynn, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After reading and agreeing with the City staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, listening to applicant’s comments, lacking any opposition to the application and given the irregular shape of the property in relation to the dwelling, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 17 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 01/22 by C. & J. Flynn, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Revised Exhibit 2, Exhibits 3 & 4, Revised Exhibit 5 & Exhibit 6). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 02/22 M. Wilson 1100 Begley Street, Unit 9 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to: • permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing the requested variance has been reviewed and have no objections to the proposal in principle. Written comments were received from the resident of 1100 Begley Street, Unit 10, in objection to the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified that to accommodate a deck and due to the irregular shape of the lot, it is necessary to reduce the rear yard setback. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 17 Mary Wilson, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Mary Wilson stated she is seeking relief to accommodate a similar application for a deck that was previously approved for her neighbours at the Committee of Adjustment Hearing in September 2021. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer, stated the proposed expanded deck for the subject site does abut the property line shared between units 8 and 9. There are no setback requirements between the units for this type of condominium townhouse development. In response to questions from Committee Members, Mary Wilson stated the property is slightly sloped to the south, which is the reason for the height being 2.6 metres above grade. Additionally, the deck projects from the second floor having a walkout from the main level as well as from the basement patio. After hearing from the applicant and reviewing the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act and Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 02/22 by M. Wilson, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 17 4.4 P/CA 03/22 to P/CA 30/22 Marathon Homes Limited 2622-2652 Delphinium Trail, 2735-2749 Peter Matthews Drive, and 2753-2759 Peter Matthews Drive Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That the Committee dispense of the reading of applications P/CA 03/21 to P/CA 30/22 by Marathon Homes Limited. Carried Unanimously P/CA 03/22 to P/CA 07/22 – 2622, 2624, 2626, 2628 & 2630 Delphinium Trail – Block 165, Lots 2 to 6 on Exhibit 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 10.0 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 08/22 – 2632 Delphinium Trail – Block 165, Lot 7 on Exhibit 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.8 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 09/22 – 2634 Delphinium Trail – Block 166, Lot 1 on Exhibit 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.6 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 17 P/CA 10/22 & P/CA 11/22 – 2636 & 2638 Delphinium Trail – Block 166, Lots 2 & 3 on Exhibit 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 10.1 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 12/22 – 2640 Delphinium Trail – Block 166, Lot 4 on Exhibit 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 9.0 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 13/22 to P/CA 18/22 – 2642, 2644, 2646, 2648, 2650 & 2652 Delphinium Trail – Block 167, Lots 1 to 6 on Exhibit 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 9.2 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 19/22 & P/CA 20/22 – 2759 & 2757 Peter Matthews Drive – Block 172, Lots 3 & 4 on Exhibit 5 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.3 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 21/22 & P/CA 22/22 – 2755 & 2753 Peter Matthews Drive – Block 172, Lots 5 & 6 on Exhibit 5 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.6 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 17 P/CA 23/22 & P/CA 30/22 – 2749 & 2735 Peter Matthews Drive – Block 173, Lots 1 & 8 on Exhibit 6 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.1 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 24/22 to P/CA 29/22 – 2747, 2745, 2743, 2741, 2739 & 2737 Peter Matthews Drive – Block 173, Lots 2 to 7 on Exhibit 6 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.6 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to obtain building permits to facilitate the construction of residential townhomes. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified the depth of the lot would require the dwellings to be increased in length to meet the maximum setback creating an increase in square footage beyond what would be affordable for a townhouse. Richard Vink, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Richard Vink spoke in support of the application stating the proposal is to facilitate the development site for 3-storey townhouses with rear lane garages in 5 buildings. The applications meet the requirements for minimum and maximum front yard setbacks, and meet the minimum required rear yard setbacks, but exceed the maximum required rear yard setbacks. The design accommodates deep townhouse lots that are between 1,850 to 2,650 square feet. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 17 The applications request relief between 1.1 metres up to 2.5 metres, from the required 7.5 metre rear yard setback. It is believed that the applications meet the four tests of the Planning Act. In response to questions from Committee Members, Richard Vink stated the design exceeds the minimum required parking space depth based on the setback, however there is only enough depth for a single car outside of the garage. The large quantity of applications was a result of a zoning review completed by staff during the building permit application stage. City staff recommended proceeding individually through minor variance applications rather than collectively through a Zoning By-law Amendment application. There is no intention of seeking additional minor variances on this site. After reading the staff report, reviewing the submitted plans and drawings, and listening to the agent’s responses to questions from Committee Members, the applications appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 03/22 to P/CA 30/22 by Marathon Homes Limited, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed residential townhomes, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 31/22 P. Nelson 1707 Echo Point Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law 1998/85, to: • permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a covered and uncovered deck with steps. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 17 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the residents of 1013 Honeywood Crescent, 1011 Honeywood Crescent, and 1717 Echo Point Court, in opposition to the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified that to accommodate a deck, it is necessary to reduce the rear yard setback. Committee Member, Tom Copeland, completed a site visit to the property and took photographs that were shared with Committee Members and staff. Secretary-Treasurer, Deborah Wylie, advised Committee Members that the subject dwelling complies with the Zoning By-law’s maximum height requirements. Tyrone Grey, agent, was present to represent the application. Brian Majerus of 1717 Echo Point Court, Deborah Valleau of 1009 Honeywood Crescent, as well as Ursula Donelan and Dana Yurchi of 1013 Honeywood Crescent, were present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Tyrone Grey spoke in support of the application stating there is a significant slope in the rear yard making the space unusable. The higher deck will be used for a barbecue space and to reduce tripping hazards. The lower deck will be used for amenity space for the children. Brian Majerus spoke in objection to the application, reiterating points addressed in his letter and pictures submitted to the Committee. The proposal is believed to be intrusive to neighbouring properties, based on the disproportionate height differential. The dramatic grading of the lot places the proposed deck at the same height as the top of the fence line overlooking all neighbouring properties. If a deck were to be erected on the property it should be at a dramatically reduced height to mitigate the disruption caused to neighbours. Lastly Brian Majerus noted that although the house meets zoning requirements the deck is not in keeping with the existing neighbourhood. Deborah Valleau spoke in objection to the application stating the height of the deck is too high being located at top of fence line. The property has a significant slope and grading which adds to the privacy concerns, drainage issues and reduced sunlight. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 17 Ursula Donelan and her granddaughter Dana Yurchi spoke in objection to the application, reiterating the written comments submitted to the Committee Members for their consideration. The residents spoke to the damage inflicted on their property based on the significant slope and drainage issues of the subject site. Moreover, their concerns with the dramatic proposed height, loss of sunlight, and safety issued were also noted. In response to a question posed by a neighbour, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated the depth of the deck is measured as the distance from the back wall of the house to the end of the deck toward the rear lot line, being approximately 3.3 metres. In response to questions from Committee Members, Tyrone Grey stated the rear deck is approximately 3.5 metres deep and the height is parallel to first-storey level, approximately 1.6 metres above grade. When asked if the owners would consider removing the top portion of the deck and only include the lower level patio, Tyrone Grey indicated the owners are not opposed to that option, where a newly proposed height for the patio would be approximately 14 inches above grade (0.35 of a metre). In response to a question from a Committee Member, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated the Zoning By-law does not have a maximum height requirement for a deck. After listening to the applicant and the neigbours, and reading the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, the application does not appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 31/22 by P. Nelson, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 32/22 A. Gilani & S. Hakeem-Gilani 851 Surf Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law No. 2511, as amended, to: • permit a minimum rear yard depth of 5.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the extension of an uncovered deck with steps. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 17 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the residents of 547 Park Crescent, in support of the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified that in order to accommodate a deck, it is necessary to reduce the rear yard setback. Aly Gilani, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Aly Gilani stated the existing deck is virtually unusable at 0.38 metres wide. There is a gas line in the deck to use a barbecue however the space is too narrow. The application is being brought forward to accommodate an extension to the existing deck. Having no public input or agency comments, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Sean W iley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 32/22 by A. Gilani & S. Hakeem-Gilani, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck with steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 17 4.7 P/CA 33/22 Infrastructure Ontario Lands within the Hydro Corridor located east of 915 & 935 Sandy Beach Road Committee Member Sean Wiley advised he would recuse himself from voting, due to a potentially perceived conflict of interest for P/CA 33/22 for Infrastructure Ontario – lands within the Hydro Corridor located east of 915 & 935 Sandy Beach Road. In order to prevent a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair, indicated he would abstain from voting on this item. The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 88/74, to permit: • a Private Parking Lot use, whereas the By-law permits a Public Parking Lot use; • where a lot is used for a permitted purpose other than for garden purposes or as a public playground, and there are no buildings or structures thereon, the minimum front yard and side yard requirements of the zone shall not apply, whereas the By-law requires the minimum front yard and side yard requirements of the zone within which the lot is situated to be complied with as if there were a dwelling or structure on the lot. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to permit surplus parking within a hydro corridor, associated with employment uses on an adjacent property. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. No written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section on this application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating that the applicant should ensure the proposed parking lot within the hydro corridor does not adversely affect the drainage patters of the surrounding area. In support of the application, the applicant submitted a Planning Justification Report that was shared with Committee Members and made available to the public if a copy was requested. Thomas Melymuk, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Thomas Melymuk stated he has reviewed the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, share staff’s opinion of the application meeting the four tests of the Planning Act, and has no objections to proposed recommended condition. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 17 In response to questions from Committee Members, Tom Melymuk stated there is no proposal yet to redevelop the lands at 915 and 935 Sandy Beach Road but some opportunities are being explored which initiated the contact with Infrastructure Ontario. It was determined that this variance application would be required to initiate the conversation to lease the lands from Hydro One for surplus parking. The requirement under the provincial secondary land use program is that lease of the lands is only permitted for secondary purposes, if it meets the needs as well as compliance with the Official Plan and Zoning requirements. The private parking lot did not conform so the application was necessary to entertain options for redevelopment of the abutting property. The Exhibit 2 to P/CA 33/22 illustrates the hatched area that would be the location of the potential future surplus parking area. The other Exhibits in the report show the entire ownership of Infrastructure Ontario; however the variances would apply only to the lands to the east of 915 and 935 Sandy Beach Road. After having reviewed the application and hearing, the comments provided from the agent, the proposal appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 33/22 by Infrastructure Ontario, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the surplus Private Parking Lot use, associated with 915 & 935 Sandy Beach Road, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 12, 2022). Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 17 February 9, 2022 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 1st hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:11 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, February 9, 2022. Carried Unanimously _________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer